It's all in the lens

First off, monster kudos for the QA folks in this world. I spent about five hours today pinch-hitting for an overbooked QA Dept. by proofing digital translations of dead-tree architectural floor plans. I've done this recently enough that I already know that it's (at least) a two-phase job:

Step 1: Check the overall layout of walls, furniture and even the direction that the doors open/close.
Step 2: Check the nitty-gritty details like room numbering and (in some cases) number of filing cabinets

If you're able to check for both in one gulp, more power to you. You're more observant than I. (Whereupon I should note that being detail-oriented and claiming to be the person who "put the hyphen in 'anal-retentive'"--as I do--are quite often two different things.)

It's the difference that inspires tonight's installment of this blog. Anyone who rolls with the "J" part of the Myers-Briggs "INTJ" as strongly as I do can only look through the microscope or the telescope at any given time. Not both. (Those who can manage both simultaneously: More power to you. Seriously.) In practice, that boils down to the choice between planning and execution. To conjure a prettier metaphor, it's the choice (for folks in my quadrant of human existence, at least), between looking through the telescope or turning it around to use as the microscope.

In other words, the choice of lens is everything. At any given moment, anyway.

Thus, it's important for that sort--my sort--to remember to do both. On a diligently regular basis. If you're clocking hours for someone else--as I currently am--putting a note on your calendar six months out from review-time is the best perspective from which to consider whether what you're putting into the firm is comparable to what you're receiving from it. If you're on your own (as I am currently not), it's arguably the best time to think beyond the balance sheet. In both cases (I submit), there's enough perspective to matter and enough time to actually do something about it.